bla, page-5

Simple:
1. If the fees are unsustainable it reflects on the growth prospects.
2. If the fees are being "booked" on funds that are recording profits that are not realized and therefore earned but not paid (one of Glaucus's issues - the Fees "written" but unpaid) and the profits are fake, then the fund will never pay the fees.
3. People have put money into Blue Sky's funds on the basis that they are competent and diligent managers and place a high level of trust in them to act in their best interests. If there is an element of writing up profits on businesses that are not worth those write ups, they will erode their trust and people will stop putting money into their funds.
4. I don't think you realise that funds under management are not their money, the Blue Sky model is to get other peoples money, invest it and charge fees, so Glaucus suggesting that the funds are substantially less than advertised is a hit on the projected growth prospects of the company combined with a lesser fee income than people are predicting (hence the revaluing of the share price)